Skip to main content
Glama
AliKarami

MikroMCP

by AliKarami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage NTP Client

manage_ntp_client
DestructiveIdempotent

Configure NTP client settings on a MikroTik router: enable or disable time sync, set servers, mode, or VLAN. Preview changes with a dry run before applying.

Instructions

Update NTP client settings on a MikroTik router. Idempotent: returns already_set if no changes are needed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoNTP client mode
dryRunNoPreview changes without applying.
enabledNoEnable or disable the NTP client
serversNoComma-separated NTP server addresses
routerIdNoRouter ID; omit to use the default router.
vlanInterfaceNoVLAN interface for NTP communication
confirmationTokenNoToken from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token from a prior APPROVAL_REQUIRED response. Re-submit the identical call with this token to confirm the destructive action.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Previous value: -"Preview changes without applying"New value: +"Preview changes without applying."
    • changedInput schema / properties / routerId / description
      Previous value: -"Target router identifier from the router registry"New value: +"Router ID; omit to use the default router."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "routerId"
-]
  3. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior (returning 'already_set' when no changes are needed), but for a destructive tool it stays silent on which changes are dangerous or that an APPROVAL_REQUIRED round-trip may be triggered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the idempotency behavior placed second. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter destructive mutation with a confirmation-token workflow and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: schema and annotations cover the mechanics, but the destructive-approval path and the effect of each setting are never surfaced in prose. An agent can call it, but not confidently reason about consequences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the enum options for 'mode' and the purpose of dryRun and confirmationToken, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or interactions (e.g., VLAN interface vs routerId) beyond what is already documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update NTP client settings') scoped to a MikroTik router, which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_ntp_settings. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_ntp_settings (read the current config first) or set_system_clock. Nothing explains the approval/confirmation flow that the confirmationToken parameter implies, leaving the agent to discover the two-step write path on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools